Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Sally]

Sally - the point is that advocates of other suspects – such as Hutchinson or say Fleming – have been vocal in calling for firm evidence against Cross when there is none available for their preferred culprit. This smacks of hypocrisy or at least double standards.

I'd call for 'firm evidence' in any case, Lechmere, whoever was being mooted as a suspect - whether that was Cross, Hutchinson, Fleming or Joe Bloggs (or even Bad Joe Barnett). It doesn't matter either that we are talking specifically of potential suspects in the Ripper case here - the same applies to any proposal based on historic evidence. You must know, surely, that the first rule of any such proposal must be that the theory must fit the evidence and not the other way around? In this case, Cross 'being made to fit' the role of Ripper appears rather as the latter to me. But we can agree to differ - that's fine.

Perhaps you don’t favour Hutchinson as the culprit and I have misjudged you or you have changed your views.

Fair enough. I don't have a 'culprit' Lechmere; on the day that I see new evidence which convinces me; or even goes some way towards that position, I'll have a 'culprit'. Until then, no. The many holes in our knowledge of this case, in large measure brought about by the loss of a large part of the original record set renders a firm allegiance to any given individual overly ambitious in my view. That's not to say that I don't think some are more likely than others, but that's as far as I feel it would be prudent to go as it stands.

I'm always hopeful that somebody will come up with new evidence, as I'm sure many are. I don't think it's out of question that this will happen at all.

We are dealing with a long cold case here and realistically anyone who proposes a potential culprit is basing their case largely on conjecture. By looking at the facts as known and building a case around them. Firm evidence will be lacking.

Yes, that's quite right. However, some qualification of what we mean by conjecture is necessary, I feel. In your case, all you have is a potential for opportunity - circumstance, as somebody else put it. It's interesting, yes, but personally I would want to see more than that. You bring up Fleming - let's use him as an example - and please note that this does not imply any allegiance to Fleming on my part; it's by way of example only and off the top of my head - Say Fleming was the Ripper, for the sake of argument. Well then, what do we have to connect him to the case?

We know that he was Kelly's boyfriend.
We know that at the time of her death they still had a relationship.
We know that Kelly was killed in her private room, raising the strong possibility that her killer knew her.
We know that he lived very close by at the time of her death.
We know that he lived in the Victoria Home, where he had ample opportunity to come and go without comment - no close ties to keep tabs on him.
We know that he suffered from mental health problems and spent the remaining years of his life in an asylum.

Of course we could also raise counterarguments - as some have indeed done. However, given the nature of the above, conjecture that Fleming was the Ripper is conjecture based on leading facts. An argument for Fleming is on that basis plausible, because we can argue on the basis of those facts that he had:

Opportunity and means - he was placed in the heart of the murder district and could have been suitably 'anonymous' in his movements.

Motive - he was romantically linked to Kelly, who had since taken up with another man. Hatred and jealousy could have ensued, particularly given his mental state.

Psychology - He was mentally unstable, so it is fair to suggest that his perception of the world may not have been 'normal'.

You could argue thus - A crazy man with a proven relationship with the last victim living in the heart of the murder district - what more do you want? He's the Ripper!

You don't have any of that for Cross, that's all. Opportunity, you might have; Motive, you don't have - yet; and neither do you have any hint of a psychological trait that might further his candidacy for Ripperhood.

The knife carrying issue is a case in point. What potential suspect can be shown to have been carrying a knife on any one of the murder nights? I suspect that is what motivated Fisherman to make his joke about the bloodstained pocket – but then that is just conjecture on my part.

I don't know what the knife business is about really, lots of people would have carried knives quite legitimately. Nobody can prove that suspect A or suspect B carried a knife, or not; and even if they did, it wouldn't be necessarily an indication of suspicion in 1888. It's a non starter for me.

I think, Lechmere, that you have raised an interesting argument with regard to Cross; but I think you have a lot further to go with it if it's ever going to be more than purely speculative. I'd encourage you to go back to your research and see what else you can find to support your case. As I have already said to you, good luck with it. I hope to see more in due course.

[curious]

Hello Christer. Entirely welcome. And DO keep investigating this chap.

Cheers.
LC

Hear, Hear!

What year did Cross go into the grocery business?

Have you discovered any major event in his life that coincides with 1888?

What is his educational background?

I've followed this thread from the beginning, but occasionally my memory takes a vacation.

Thanks!

[Sally]

Sally!

What Lechmere writes, "the point is that advocates of other suspects – such as Hutchinson or say Fleming – have been vocal in calling for firm evidence against Cross when there is none available for their preferred culprit. This smacks of hypocrisy or at least double standards", is of course what lies behind my discussing Hutchinson. You speak of an "obsession" with Hutchinson on my behalf, and ask me what he has to do with this thread, and thereīs your answer for you.

You have voiced a firm belief that Hutchinson is a good bid for the killerīs role, I believe, and since you have instead judged the Cross bid in sequence, and I quote you directly, "a bit thin", "mental leapfrog" and a bid for the bin of "crackpot theories", I think that Hutchinson belongs to this thread very much.
Since he is seemingly your favourite for the Ripper title, one would expect you to subject him to the exact same scrutiny as Cross. And in consequence with this, I take it that you very much agree that Hutchinson is a bid that belongs to the crackpot theories, since we have no firm evidence at all on him, since he was AS FAR AS WE KNOW an upright citizen, since we have no evidence that he ever carried a knife and since we cannot show any sign of sexual deviances, violent behviour, any psychosis or such things. We donīt even have him mocking old ladies feeding birds on record.

Can I take it that your stance on Hutchinson is that he too is only useful for crackpot theorists as long as these "shortcomings" attach to him? Just like Cross, that is?

This, you see, Sally, is how and why George Hutchinson belongs to this thread. And to be honest, I am not the one who brought him to the thread. You did, by laying down evidence demands for Cross that are quite unreasonable.
The best way to show you why? You know that by now, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

Fish.

Astonishingly, you have made some reasonable points from time to time in your relentless pursuit of Cross (as I think I observed very early on in this thread)

You undermine yourself, however, with your constant 'discredit the opponent' debating technique. Give it a rest. Even Lechmere can concede that George Hutchinson has nothing to do with my reservations with regard to Cross.

And you brought him up - then attempted to justify it by blaming me. I have explained to you, twice, that I was responding to your suggestion regarding the redundancy of 'hard facts' when looking for a Ripper suspect. I fail to see what that has to do with Hutchinson. I say again - why are you derailing your own thread with another suspect?

I don't want to see any further allegations from you to the effect that my argument is motivated by support for Hutchinson. It categorically isn't.

I'm asking you now, politely, to desist.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Christer and Lynn,

And there you go, Jon! Thanks, Lynn!

Well, she had lost a lot of blood, all the main arteries had been severed, and once the abdomen had been opened I cannot believe her heart would have lingered on.

Cool thread, Christer. Nichols is sorely neglected on the message boards.

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman, all,

I have been following this thread with great interest, even though I thus far find the idea of Cross as the Ripper not too convincing.

My problem is that a) most of Cross' behaviour on the crime scene is rather ambiguous in the sense that it fits to an innocent man as well as a murderer, and b) he would have had at least -some- blood on his person/his clothes which would have arisen immediate suspicion. I know that the killer probably applied the throat cuts in a way that protected him from the spray of blood to some extend but there sure was some of it on his hands and of course his knife. Then there are the mutilations which, in my humble opinion, cannot be made without getting your hands dirty, so to speak.

Subsequently, I think the assumption that Cross was disturbed by Paul who walked down Buck's Row on his way to work is insupportable. It would have been extremly difficult for Cross to provisionally clean himself and pull down the clothes in the short timeframe between hearing Paul's footsteps for the first time and his (Paul's) appearance on the scene.

Anyway, some good points have been made in this thread and I tend to agree that Cross may be a worthy candidate for further research but wouldn't rate him as a "proper" suspect yet.

Just my tuppence.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fisherman, all,

I have been following this thread with great interest, even though I thus far find the idea of Cross as the Ripper not too convincing.

My problem is that a) most of Cross' behaviour on the crime scene is rather ambiguous in the sense that it fits to an innocent man as well as a murderer, and b) he would have had at least -some- blood on his person/his clothes which would have arisen immediate suspicion. I know that the killer probably applied the throat cuts in a way that protected him from the spray of blood to some extend but there sure was some of it on his hands and of course his knife. Then there are the mutilations which, in my humble opinion, cannot be made without getting your hands dirty, so to speak.

Subsequently, I think the assumption that Cross was disturbed by Paul who walked down Buck's Row on his way to work is insupportable. It would have been extremly difficult for Cross to provisionally clean himself and pull down the clothes in the short timeframe between hearing Paul's footsteps for the first time and his (Paul's) appearance on the scene.

Anyway, some good points have been made in this thread and I tend to agree that Cross may be a worthy candidate for further research but wouldn't rate him as a "proper" suspect yet.

Just my tuppence.

Regards,

Boris

For what its worth at the end of one of my talks I was approached by a relative of Cross who themselves had their suspicions as to the likelihod of him being a killer.

[Robert]

Hi Trevor

Could you expand on that (if it's not confidential)? Were the suspicions based on some family memory of bad behaviour by Cross (wife-beating or some such)?

[bolo]

Hi Trevor,

I also would like to know more about these suspicions if possible.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Astonishingly, you have made some reasonable points from time to time in your relentless pursuit of Cross (as I think I observed very early on in this thread)"

Why "astonishingly", Sally?

"You undermine yourself, however, with your constant 'discredit the opponent' debating technique."

But Sally, I was not the one who called Cross something for the crackpot theorists, was I?

Never mind answering these two points, though - they answer themselves. Instead concentrate on the important question I posed:

Given the demands on evidence you have presented visavi Cross - do you regard Hutchinson a crackpot suggestion by the same token?

For some reason, my guess is that you will evade the question...?

"I'm asking you now, politely, to desist."

I will have my answer first, Sally. THAT would be "polite" to provide at long last.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

It would have been extremly difficult for Cross to provisionally clean himself and pull down the clothes in the short timeframe between hearing Paul's footsteps for the first time and his (Paul's) appearance on the scene.

Anyway, some good points have been made in this thread and I tend to agree that Cross may be a worthy candidate for further research but wouldn't rate him as a "proper" suspect yet.

Just my tuppence.

Regards,

Boris

Hi, Boris,

Considering Cross as the killer: As my mind puts the scene together, Cross heard the first footsteps, started to stand and tugged the clothing down just far enough to cover the abdominal wounds sort of in one motion, then scurried out to the middle of the street to distance himself from the body.

I think he could have shoved the knife into a pocket as he moved into the street -- but likely not have cleaned it.

I agree with you that Cross is certainly worthy of more study.

[Fisherman]

Bolo:


"My problem is that a) most of Cross' behaviour on the crime scene is rather ambiguous in the sense that it fits to an innocent man as well as a murderer"

It is - otherwise he would not have evaded suspicion the way he did!

" he would have had at least -some- blood on his person/his clothes which would have arisen immediate suspicion."

In almost complete darkness, where Paul could not even see that she had had her neck cut down to the spine? There was blood flowing underneath, two wine-glasses of it, that was not detected. Why would a few spots on Crossīhands - if they were there - have been?

"Then there are the mutilations which, in my humble opinion, cannot be made without getting your hands dirty, so to speak."

She was opened up, but there was no evidence at all that the killer had stuck his hands inside her. If you hold down a dead animal, having had itīs neck severed, and stick a knife in itīs belly and saw away - why would you get blood on your hands? The blood from the cut seeped into the abdominal cavity, was the contention back then.

"Subsequently, I think the assumption that Cross was disturbed by Paul who walked down Buck's Row on his way to work is insupportable. It would have been extremly difficult for Cross to provisionally clean himself and pull down the clothes in the short timeframe between hearing Paul's footsteps for the first time and his (Paul's) appearance on the scene."

And what WAS the timeframe? Paul had just about 90-100 yards to walk before he was at the spot. A policeman was supposed to walk arond 75 yards per minute. Then again, he took it slowly, so maybe Paul had a minuteīs walk or so down Buckīs Row. Letīs remember that Cross saids that he only noticed Paul forty yards away, but it was for Cross to choose what figure to give, was it not? And Neil noticed Thain walking by up on Brady Street, from the murder spot.

There could have been ample time. How long would it take to abort, pull the dress down and stash the knife? Eight seconds? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? They are all time spaces that can be afforded!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally your hypothetical case for Fleming makes my point. I will go through the points you raise as fact to illustrate this:

We know that he was Kelly's boyfriend.
Yes this can be accepted as a fact.

We know that at the time of her death they still had a relationship.
No – we know that she was seeing someone else called Joe. It is conjecture that this was Fleming.

We know that Kelly was killed in her private room, raising the strong possibility that her killer knew her.
Yes that’s a possibility.

We know that he lived very close by at the time of her death.
We don’t actually know where Fleming was living.

We know that he lived in the Victoria Home, where he had ample opportunity to come and go without comment - no close ties to keep tabs on him.
Actually all we know is that someone called Joseph Fleming lived in the Victoria Home. We have no way of knowing that it was the same person and there is some evidence (that word again) which suggest it was not. Firstly his height is given as 6 feet and seven inches – which makes him unusually tall (but not a giant as some over claim) and this is likely to have been commented on. Secondly he was picked up by the police before he was committed to an asylum and gave a false name. That false name was quickly discovered and his true indentity (Fleming) revealed. Had he been Kelly’s Fleming and had he not been cleared in 1888 it seems extremely unlikely that the police would have let him slip through the net without ‘checking him out’.
Lastly the Victoria Home had much stricter rules than other lodging houses – particularly with regard to late entry. It was not the sort of place where an inmate could come and go as they pleased in the early hours of the morning.
Also the Victoria Home afforded no opportunity for the storage of body parts if that is deemed to be a necessity for the Ripper. I don’t personally put massive store on this.

We know that he suffered from mental health problems and spent the remaining years of his life in an asylum.
This is true of the Joseph Fleming who lived in the Victoria Home but as I have pointed out we don’t know that this is the same person. That is conjecture.

So by the same standards that are applied to Cross all we have is that Fleming used to be Kelly’s boyfriend.

[Robert]

We now have Mr H, Mr B and Mr F on the same thread. Any chance of getting the marginalia in?

[bolo]

Hi curious,

Considering Cross as the killer: As my mind puts the scene together, Cross heard the first footsteps, started to stand and tugged the clothing down just far enough to cover the abdominal wounds sort of in one motion, then scurried out to the middle of the street to distance himself from the body.

yes, this seems to be a technically feasible line of events but there still is the matter of bloodstains. Paul would not have noticed them on Cross' hands or clothes at the scene of the crime which lay in darkness but they must have walked past a few street lamps on their way to Hanbury Street where Cross told PC Mizen about a woman lying on the street in Buck's Row. I think this would have been too high a risk for Cross to take if he was the killer.

Hi Fisherman,

She was opened up, but there was no evidence at all that the killer had stuck his hands inside her. If you hold down a dead animal, having had itīs neck severed, and stick a knife in itīs belly and saw away - why would you get blood on your hands? The blood from the cut seeped into the abdominal cavity, was the contention back then.

When I was a kid, I often helped my grandfather who was a farmer on slaughtering day. Cutting open dead rabbits after they got skinned is not an exceptionally bloody affair but I never managed to get away with at least a bit of blood spatter on my hands, arms and clothes, even though we worked in broad daylight and without haste, contrary to Polly's killer who had to do his job in the dark and in a hurry.

In Polly's case, the killer cut her abdomen in a downward movement. To achieve this, his knife has to be dragged through areas of different density which may result in the knife getting stuck momentarily and then jump forward as soon as more force gets applied. This almost inevitably leads to a bit of blood spattering about so it seems very likely that some of it landed on the killers extremities and/or clothes.

And what WAS the timeframe? Paul had just about 90-100 yards to walk before he was at the spot. A policeman was supposed to walk arond 75 yards per minute. Then again, he took it slowly, so maybe Paul had a minuteīs walk or so down Buckīs Row. Letīs remember that Cross saids that he only noticed Paul forty yards away, but it was for Cross to choose what figure to give, was it not? And Neil noticed Thain walking by up on Brady Street, from the murder spot.

There could have been ample time. How long would it take to abort, pull the dress down and stash the knife? Eight seconds? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? They are all time spaces that can be afforded!

I agree that Cross would have had ample time to abort, pull the dress down, hide the knife and then play the role of the innocent passer-by - if it wasn't for possible bloodstains (see my reply to curious above). These would have taken considerably more time to provisionally get rid of.

If I try to picture myself in Cross' shoes who just killed and mutilated Polly, I would have chosen the easy way out and simply ran away. A short dash down to the school corner, a turn to the left and I would have been out of sight. Even if there would not have been visible bloodstains on my person, I still would have had the blood-dripping knife in my pocket, read, a very telling piece of evidence which would have brought me in deep trouble if it had been discovered during the police inquiry.

Instead, Cross and Paul went down Baker's Row/Hanbury Street to inform a PC about a possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row, parted and calmly went to their respective place of work. This would have been a highly dangerous gamble if Cross really was the man, one that he could have prevented by simply running away instead of particpiating actively in a police inquiry and subsequent inquest that could have led to his conviction.

Regards,

Boris

[Cogidubnus]

We now have Mr H, Mr B and Mr F on the same thread. Any chance of getting the marginalia in?

And Lechmere wasm't Jewish was he?